Gay divorce first, religious freedom a distant second

One thing the “great gay divorce crisis of January 2012” has shown is that our government can move fast when it feels the need to get something important done. The same-sex marriage debacle lasted all of about three days and ended Friday with the government assuring all gay couples who married here, but do not reside here, that not only is their marriage valid but they could come here anytime to enjoy the weather, curling and get a divorce.

Meantime, the government’s office of religious freedom, promised about a year ago during the federal election campaign, still sits in limbo with no details being released to the public about what such an office would look like or when it might even open.

Perhaps the issue of non-resident gay couples seeking divorce in Canada is actually greater than I understand. On the other hand, it may have been the government desperate to show that it has no secret social conservative agenda to revisit same-sex marriage. That is almost as bad as any hint of revisiting Canada’s policy (non-policy) on abortion.

As happy as I am that the government settled this whole gay divorce mess there are a few things I still do not understand.

To review:

A mysterious gay couple found out that they could not get a divorce in Canada because they did not meet the residency requirement. It also appeared as if their marriage had no real status because their home jurisdictions, Florida and the U.K., do not recognize same-sex unions.This story never really made any sense on several levels. First, if they could marry here without residency requirements then they should be able to divorce here — which the government has now assured us will be the case.

The second thing that seemed odd about this story is that the couple would feel the need to get a divorce when one was not required. They could work out a simple contract to divide assets and be done with it. But that might be looked upon as discriminatory. No one would want the stigma of a tainted divorce.

Rather, they should have the right to come to Canada to have their divorce officially sanctioned. They should also have the right to spend thousands of dollars, even for a non-contested divorce, complete agonizing paperwork and make endless trips to lawyers’ offices.

All of this to prove they are not second-class citizens and their divorces are as good as that of any fractious heterosexuals.

There was a more serious aspect, of course: For about 24 hours a scare went out across the globe from those gay men and women married in Canada that their marriages were not for real. I can understand how this would be upsetting. And the government was right to assure these people that Canadians are not cold and indifferent to their feelings — given they allowed them to get married here in the first place.

But I could also see being killed for being a Christian in Egypt or Nigeria would also be upsetting, which brings me back to the campaign promise of a new office of religious freedom and the issue of responding quickly to dire situations. To date, the government, in their usual spirit of openness, has said nothing about what that office would look like. They have held consultations behind closed doors, that much we know. But other than that the government has not said a word.

Well, that is not exactly true.

According to Canadian Press, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird did defend the government’s plans after receiving criticism from Alex Neve, head of Amnesty International Canada.

The Canadian Press story said: “Neve said religious freedom can have a ‘contentious relationship’ with other crucial human-rights concerns such as women’s equality, the equality rights of gays and lesbians, and freedom of expression.

“It’s an area obviously where governments need to tread carefully. They need to do so in ways where they don’t – either intentionally or unintentionally – convey a message that some religions are preferred over others.”

Mr. Baird told Canadian Press that such concerns are not necessary. Though I am still not sure what what his reassurances are actually about.

The government is still in the midst of studying what such an office would look like. I’m sure there will be many persecuted people around the world who will breathe a sigh of relief once Mr. Baird can announce a few details. But clearly there is no rush. This is not a topic in which paranoids can accuse the government of having a secret agenda. And at the end of the day maybe Canadians are more concerned about a single gay divorce than about the violent religious persecution of thousands of men, women and children.